R. v. Hayworth (K.W.) et al., (2003) 231 Sask.R. 204 (PC)

• Judge: Halderman, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: March 13, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2003), 231 Sask.R. 204 (PC);2003 SKPC 52

R. v. Hayworth (K.W.) (2003), 231 Sask.R. 204 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.053

Her Majesty the Queen v. Ken W. Hayworth and Laurrie Lozinski

(2003 SKPC 52)

Indexed As: R. v. Hayworth (K.W.) et al.

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Halderman, P.C.J.

March 13, 2003.

Summary:

Hayworth found the remains of a deer with very large antlers. He hid the remains in the bush. At Hayworth's suggestion, his mother-in-law (Lozinski) returned to the site and put her hunting tags on the deer, and displayed the antlers at her hunting camp. Several weeks later, Hayworth took the antlers to a horn-measuring night and registered them in Lozinski's name. A conservation officer reviewed the records of the measuring night and seized the antlers from Hayworth. Both Lozinski and Hayworth were charged with possessing wildlife without a licence, and Lozinski was additionally charged with allowing another person to use her licence.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court convicted both accused on the possession count, and acquitted Lozinski of the remaining charge.

Fish and Game - Topic 3

General principles - Legislation - Interpretation and application - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that the Wildlife Act was not "a criminal statute, where ambiguities are perhaps to be construed in favor of the accused. It is, rather, regulatory in nature and is to be interpreted purposively and liberally, in order to attain the objects of the legislation" - See paragraph 12.

Fish and Game - Topic 2335

Hunting offences - Without a licence - Allowing a licence to be used by another person - Hayworth found the remains of a deer with very large antlers - He hid the remains in the bush - At Hayworth's suggestion, his mother-in-law (Lozinski) later agreed to put her hunting tags on the deer, intending to display the antlers at her hunting camp - She accompanied Hayworth to the location, but could not affix the tags herself due to the smell of the carcass - Hayworth attached the tags - Lozinski was charged with allowing another person to use her licence - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court acquitted Lozinski - See paragraph 32.

Fish and Game - Topic 2432

Hunting offences - Possession of carcasses - Possession - What constitutes - Hayworth found the remains of a deer with very large antlers - He hid the remains in the bush - At Hayworth's suggestion, his mother-in-law (Lozinski) returned to the site and put her hunting tags on the deer - They took only the head of the carcass with them, and the antlers were displayed at Lozinski's hunting camp - Several weeks later, Hayworth took the antlers to a horn-measuring night and registered them in Lozinski's name - A conservation officer reviewed the records of the measuring night and seized the antlers from Hayworth - Both Lozinski and Hayworth were charged with possessing wildlife without a licence - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court convicted both accused - See paragraphs 11 to 18 and 27 to 31.

Fish and Game - Topic 2437

Hunting offences - Possession of carcasses - Defences - Hayworth found the remains of a deer with very large antlers - He hid the remains in the bush - At Hayworth's suggestion, his mother-in-law (Lozinski) returned to the site and put her hunting tags on the deer, and displayed the antlers at her hunting camp - Several weeks later, Hayworth took the antlers to a horn-measuring night and registered them in Lozinski's name - A conservation officer reviewed the records of the measuring night and seized the antlers from Hayworth - Hayworth was charged with possessing wildlife without a licence - He argued that he had made a reasonable, good-faith effort to obey the law by having a licensed hunter tag the antlers, and had made no attempt at concealment when he registered them in Lozinski's name at the measuring night - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court rejected this "due diligence" defence and convicted Hayworth - See paragraphs 19 to 26.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Danners (J.) (1996), 143 Sask.R. 302 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Robson (J.E.), [1999] Sask.R. Uned. 251 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Agpro Grain Inc. and Bielka (1996), 142 Sask.R. 37 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Young (C.M.) (1995), 136 Sask.R. 77 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 15].

Statutes Noticed:

Wildlife Act, S.S. 1979, c. W-13.1, sect. 3 [para. 11]; sect. 31.2 [para. 8]; sect. 33(2) [para. 7]; sect. 45 [para. 23].

Counsel:

Gary Parker, Crown Prosecutor;

Darren Armitage, for the defendants.

This case was heard in Hudson Bay, Saskatchewan, by Halderman, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on March 13, 2003.